follows:-On Monday, November 6th, as some work- Length inside 2ft 8iu.) 2 stones on each side. Width Depth The larger one in Oft 11in. Length inside 5ft 8in. Depth 1ft lin. Oft 11in. } 2 at bottom, 2 at top. as the former. 10. The The head of each was on the same line, From the foot of the smaller to that of the larger was about seven feet, and from the foot of the larger to the uru also about seven feet. The urn was on the right side of the female, and may have contained the ashes of her husband, and the coffin of the child on her left. The tops of the graves and urn were about 11 inches from the surface. The stones were apparently, from Goadby quarry in the lane from Waltham to Harby. bracelet having been submitted by G. Norman, Esq., of Goadby Marwood, to the inspection of Thos. Bateman, Esq., of Yolgrave, Derbyshire, he returned the following observations, December 31, 1848.-"In answer to your enquiries respecting the age of the bracelet, I beg to state at once that it is impossible to name a precise date, though I think we can approximate pretty nearly to the age. The fact of the coffins being formed of slabs of stone, instead of being hollowed out of a single stone, indicates a period not remote from the time when kist-vaens, or stone chests, beneath barrows and tumuli were so constructed, though in the present instance no hill seems to have been raised, which was frequently the case after the conquest of Britain by the Romans. The presence of a bracelet only, and no weapons, also points to the same conclusion; so that from analagous instances which have fallen under my own observation, I have no hesitation in saying that the interment took place from the third to the fourth century of our present computation, i.e. the Christian era, I may as well mention a few other things. The interments are most probably of a female and her child; and the bracelet is not gold but bronze, a composition of copper and tin, differing from our modern brass; it is ornamented with a punc similar bracelets found with coins in my collection, which is another strong argument in favour of my date. Further, if any sketch of the urn which is mentioned were made,, it would materially assist in fixing its date with certainty." Mr. Bateman again wrote March 31, 1849, as follows-"The fragments of the urn have safely arrived here, and from their nature, and the apparent form of the vessel when perfect, there is but little doubt of the correctness of my idea of the period of the interments, to which I was led by a comparison of the bracelet with others in my collection." Again, April 6th, 1849. "Having joined the fragments of pottery as well as possible owing to some deficiencies caused by the spade, I have ventured on your time again by sending you a sketch of the present form of the vessel along with one of a Roman urn in my collection, in order that you may be able to compare the two together. All the upper part of the urn being destroyed, the restoration of course is open to doubt, but I am fully confident it is correct. The urn seems to be an intended copy of the Roman, both in form and material, though in the latter case the attempt has been unsuccessful, the clay being much coarser, and owing to the decomposition of some kind of coarse sand which has been mixed with it, the surface of the vessel is very rough, which is not the case with Roman pottery, it being firm and hard. These little things serve to supply data from which I am able to support my former opinion of the age of the interments. You may perhaps think all this of no consequence; but this kind of study has long been a source of pleasure to me, and when referred to I can hardly avoid entering into details to support any opinion I may advance." The Chairman exhibited copies of Mr. Bateman's drawings, and a plan of the locality of the interments. The bracelet was sent to the Duke of Rutland, who, Mr. Norman thinks, sent it to the British Museum. Mr. Gresley read the following paper upon NEWSTEAD. There seldom occurs so good an opportunity of thoroughly seeing a place as when it is going to be offered for sale. I therefore procured the plans and particulars of the estate and house at Newstead, and visited it a week before it was offered for sale, as we have seen reported in the newspapers. These plaus I produce, thinking it may be worth while for those of us to inspect them who may not have done so, and are interested in the remains of our Conventual Establishments. They present a remarkable instance of the domestic buildings of a Monastery being converted into a baronial residence, the sites of the various parts of the original edifice being adhered to. But before saying more respecting them, I would observe that this Monastery of Canons Regular of S. Augustine was founded by King Henry II., shortly before, or in the year 1174, as appears from the fact of " Geoffrey, Archdeacon of Canterbury, being the first witness to the foundation charter, from which preferment he was then advanced to the Bishopric of Ely. This archdeacon was employed by Henry in his dispute with Archbishop Becket, who excommunicated him, and calls him in a letter to the Bishop of Hereford, an Arch-devil, and limb of Antichrist." "I have given," says the King, "to God and St. Mary the place which I have founded in Scirwod, and by this present charter have confirmed the same place to the Canons there serving God; and Paplewic, with the church of the same town, and the mill which the Canons themselves have made, and with all things pertaining to the same town, in wood and plain," &c. No portion of the present building is so old as the twelfth century. The west front of the Conventual Church remains in very perfect preservation, excepting that the tracery of the large window has been destroyed. It is, in its architectural features, very like Salisbury and portions of Lichfield and Southwell, and may date fifty years or so after the foundation of the Monastery. It was evidently never completed. It is the west front of a nave, with north and south aisles, which were intended to have towers, but they were never raised. The south aisle was plaiuly never built, for one side of the cloisters occupies the site of it, and it may be questioned whether the north aisle ever was, for the west window of it is, like that for the south aisle, blocked up with stone, although there is the commencement of an arch and groining, between the west doors of the nave and north aisle. A statue of God the Son and S. Mary still occupies a niche high over the great western window, recalling to one's mind the verses of Lord Byron on the Angelic saluta. tion: Ave Maria! 'tis the hour of prayer! Ave Maria! 'tis the hour of love! Ave Maria! may our spirits dare Look up to thine and to thy Son's above! Ave Maria! Oh that face so fair, Those down-cast eyes beneath the Almighty dove! What though 'tis but a pictured image? &c. It is not, however, my intention to repeat on this occasion all the charming poetry with which this place inspired the muse of Lord Byron. But little is generally known of the history of the Monastery of Newstead. I find mention made of four cartularies or ledger books of the house, which contain transcripts of their title deeds, &c. Dugdale copies from one, then (1640) in the possession of Sir John Biron, which no doubt he became possessed of when he had the grant of the property from Henry VIII. The same MS is referred to by Thoroton (1677) who calls it the book of Robert Cutwolf, prior of Newstead in the time of Henry VI. "A ledger book, containing charters, &c., relating to Newstead Abbey, in Nottinghamshire, temp. Hen. VI.," is mentioned in p. 158 of the Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners on the Public Records (1837), as in the King's Remembrancer's office. Another is deposited among the Arundel MSS in the Library of the College of Arms (Norfolk MS. Another is mentioned in Spelman's Glossary, p. 458, as in the possession of the Earl of Kingston. Whether these four are all alike I cannot say. We know that transcripts of their cartularies used to be deposited by monasteries in other friendly religious houses, in order to the preservation of them in case of the destruction of the originals by fire or otherwise at home. From these cartularies, and from our national records, the history of the Monastery might be compiled. The following is a list of Priors of Newstead. It contains two names not mentioned in the Monasticon, and one or two variations from it. I have taken it from the marginal MS notes of that painful antiquary, Browne Willis, in his copy of Thoroton's Nottinghamshire, p. 262, which I have the happiness of possessing: EUSTACHIUS, Occurs 1215. ALBRED, about 1230. ROBERT, elected 1239. WILLIAM, Occurs 1267. JOHN LEXINGTON, occurs 1280. RICHARD DE HALAM, elected 1287. WILLIAM DE THURGARTON, elected 1290. RICHARD DE GRANGIA, elected 1293. HUGH DE COLINGHAM occurs 1350; was succeeded by WILLIAM ALLERTON succeeded, 1367. JOHN HUCKNALL, elected 1406. WILLIAM BAUKWELL, elected 1415. THOMAS DE CARLTON, elected 1421. THOMAS GUNTHORP, elected 1467, was living 1495; WILLIAM SAVAGE occurs 1507, called Sandal; elected 1504. 20, JOHN BLAKE, last Prior, surrendered 1540, and had a pension of £16 13s. 4d., and was living 1553, and enjoyed it: 11 monks surrendered with him, Oct. 3, 1539. He was elected 1526. The income of the Monastery just before its dissolution was found to be £219 18s. 8d. per annum. The recent editors of the Monasticon describe an impression of the Common Seal of Newstead, 26 Hen. III. (A.D. 1241-2), Cart. Harl. 112, F. 34. On it is represented the Blessed Virgin, with a lily in her right hand; on her left, the Divine Infant is seated on her lap. Legend-SIGILLVM. SANTE. MARIE. NOVI. LOCI. I am disappointed in not exhibiting a cast of this impression. Here is also a print of a relic of the Conventual Church-a brazen eagle, which I was told at Newstead. was dragged out of the square pond a few yards east of the High Altar, called in the plans the "Eagle Pond." It is also engraved in Shaw's Dresses and Decorations of the Middle Ages, Vol. I., whose account of it is worth repeating as rectifying a vulgar error : The elegant reading desk at the end of the present article was, about the year 1780, dragged out of the deep part of the lake at Newstead, and is now preserved at Southwell, in Nottinghamshire, having been purchased by Sir Richard Kaye in 1778, and presented by his widow to the chapter. It is made of brass, and was sent by them to a clockmaker to be cleaned, who observed that it was composed of several pieces, which might be taken apart. On unscrewing these, the boss was found to contain a number of parchments, most of which were deeds and grants connected with the abbey of Newstead. Among the rest was a pardon granted by King Henry V. on some occasion to the monks, and, as was common with such documents, worded so generally as to include every offence that was probable that the monks might be accused of having committed, previous to the date at which the pardon was granted. Such deeds were often necessary to protect the monks against the rapacity or malice of their neighbours. Washington Irving, who has described this reading desk in his little volume on "Abbotsford and Newstead Abbey," has entirely misunderstood the nature of this document, and represents it as an indulgence to the monks to commit crimes with impunity. There can be little doubt that this desk, which was used in the chapel of the Abbey to read the Litany from, was thrown into the lake by the monks, probably at the time when the dissolution of monasteries was first threatened, in the hope that by this means their titles would be preserved until the storm should be blown over; and they never returning to recover it, it remained beneath the water during more than two centuries." A tall brazen candlestick, with three lions projecting from the base like those of the eagle, is also shown in Southwell Church, said to have been found at Newstead at the same time. King Henry VIII. by his letters patent dated May 28, 32 H. 8., granted Newstead Priory (Newstead Ab bey is a misnomer, and a piece of presumption on the part of its lay impropriators), to Sir John Byron, of Colwick, Knight, whose illegitimate son (as appears in Thoroton's pedigree of the family) succeeded him in his estates. The recent editors of Spelman's book on Sacrilege have the following remarks in their Introduċtory Essay, pp. 50-52, edit. 1852:-"It is the more important to dwell on the history of this house, because Tanner brings it forward as one of his proofs that no especial curse attaches itself to sacrilege. We will, as nearly as we can, avail ourselves of Moore's words, in his 'Life of Lord Byron.' Sir (John ?) Byron, made a Knight of the Bath by King James I., was deeply involved in debt. His son, the first Lord Byron, died without issue. The second and third barons left each only one surviving son. The fourth baron was thrice married. By his first wife he had no issue; by his second three sons and one daughter, who all died unmarried; by his third, among other children, Admiral Byron, whose wreck off the coast of Chili, and five years' hardships, attracted public attention. 'Not long after,' says Moore, 'a less innocent sort of notoriety attached itself to two other members of the family; one the grand uncle of the poet, and the other his |